As Jim S. noted, the correction doesn’t change the fundamental conclusions of the report.

For example, the Levin report used the language “Reporting of dubious quality or reliability.” The IG report described it as “not fully supported by underlying intelligence.”

The Levin report said Feith drew on “both reliable and unreliable reporting” to reach a conclusion “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration”. The IG report notes that Feith’s reports drew on sources that were described by the Director of Central Intelligence as “of varying reliability,” a fact that (while arguably obvious) Feith left out of his briefings. The IG report went on to say that “Analysis of (DiC’s) statement does not support (Feith’s) position of a ‘mature symbiotic relationship in all areas.’ ” The IG report does not comment on whether such a position was in line with senior administration officials’ views, but we know from other sources that it was.

So while an embarassing gaffe for the WaPo (and one that costs us some of the more compelling quotes in the original article), the conclusions remain valid.

One can say that any misrepresentation of intelligence was Feith’s fault, not the administration’s. But Feith’s office was deliberately set up to provide an alternative interpretation of intelligence because the White House didn’t like or trust what the actual intelligence folks were telling it. And when Feith’s reports began to diverge from what the intelligence agencies were telling it, what did the White House do? Embrace Feith’s version. If they were misled, it was because they wanted to be misled.

‘The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report states that the office “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” The inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”‘

Notice that the IG’s office used language similar to Levin’s report, not contradicting it. Also notice that the IG’s report also specifically states that Feith’s group drew conclusions that were unsupported by the intelligence. Given Feith’s position there is no rational explanation other than political motivation.

Fake, but accurate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387_pf.html

A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general’s report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith’s office producing “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable reporting” to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration” were also from Levin’s report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general’s report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report states that the office “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” The inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”

This screw up is probably big enough to warrant not just an update, but an entire new post all-together, since by the time you update it most people won’t see it since it will have scrolled down the page.

If I don’t see a response, I might just e-mail you about it, since there’s a hance you didn’t see the comment.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Then we have the EPA report of 9/14, ordered by Bush himself, which stated the air around the WTC was safe to breathe, which has caused the casualty list from 9/11 to reach well past the 3000 mark, with thousands of first responders, rescue clean up workers, & ordinary workers & residents of the area sick & dying. Add to that the coincidence that anthrax laced mail was mailed to 5 media outlets which had been highly critical of Bush + the only 2 US Senators who opposed passage of the so called Patriot Act.

Since that event created the whole mess we find ourselves in, it cannot be considered ancient history. So when we will we get to the core of it all?